fix(expand,setup): append behavioral findings to sections 02-behavioral-profile.md actually has (#520)

Both commands told the model to add to "Strongest Behavioral Traits" and
"How I Work Best" / "How [Candidate] Works Best" while also saying "match
existing structure", but the shipped file's headings are "Strongest
Behaviors" and "How You Work Best", so an inferred trait either opened a
duplicate near-identical section or was dropped.

The companion to #519, which fixed the same drift in /reset's skeleton.
Both bullets now name the shipped headings, and a derived test in each
command's suite reads the quoted section names and requires each to be a
## heading of the shipped file; both fail on master.

.claude/commands/expand.md

@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ Apply only the confirmed items. Use the Edit tool to add to the relevant section
 For each addition, add a brief source annotation in a comment or parenthetical: *(Coursera — Deep Learning Specialisation)*, *(GitHub — project-name)*, etc. This makes future `/expand` runs idempotent.
 
 ### Additions to `02-behavioral-profile.md`
-- Soft/behavioral signals → append to the "Strongest Behavioral Traits" or "How I Work Best" section (match existing structure)
+- Soft/behavioral signals → append to the "Strongest Behaviors" or "How You Work Best" section (the shipped file's `##` headings - match existing structure)
 - Always label inferred behavioral additions: *[Inferred from reference letter — Name / review before relying on this]*
 
 ---

.claude/commands/setup.md

@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ For each skill file, compare extracted document content against the current file
 **Inference rules** (apply when populating from inferred sources):
 
 - **`01-candidate-profile.md` (`## Independent Projects`):** Source is `projects/` documents. Extract structured project entries formatted as `- **[PROJECT_NAME]**: [DESCRIPTION with tech stack and measurable outcome]`. Ground all claims in the document text.
-- **`02-behavioral-profile.md`:** Source is LinkedIn About + recommendation letters. Extract recurring themes, adjectives, phrases about how the candidate works. Add only to "Strongest Behavioral Traits", "How [Candidate] Works Best", or "Management Style Preferences" sections. Do not overwrite existing scored assessments. Always label inferred additions: *[Inferred from LinkedIn About / Reference letter - review before relying on this]*
+- **`02-behavioral-profile.md`:** Source is LinkedIn About + recommendation letters. Extract recurring themes, adjectives, phrases about how the candidate works. Add only to the "Strongest Behaviors", "How You Work Best", or "Management Style Preferences" sections (the shipped file's `##` headings). Do not overwrite existing scored assessments. Always label inferred additions: *[Inferred from LinkedIn About / Reference letter - review before relying on this]*
 - **`03-writing-style.md`:** Source is `cover_letter.tex` files. Extract recurring patterns. Add as observations under "## Patterns Observed in Past Applications". Do not modify existing rules. Only add if 2+ cover letters show a genuine pattern.
 - **`04-job-evaluation.md`:** Source is `job_posting.md` + `outcome.md` pairs. If an application reached interview or offer: note role type and sector as a confirmed strong-fit signal. If 2+ applications repeat a no-response or rejection pattern: note it. Add findings under "## Calibration from Past Applications". Do not modify the existing scoring framework.
 - **`05-cv-templates.md`:** Source is `cv_draft.tex` files. Extract any profile statement that does not already appear in templates. Label with: *[Used for: <company>_<role>]*. **Ground before extracting:** archived drafts are tailored outputs, not source documents - verify every factual claim in an extracted statement (titles, employers, metrics, technologies) against `01-candidate-profile.md` and drop or correct any claim the profile does not support, keeping only the framing. A tailored draft that drifted must never become a template future applications start from.